The complaint by the Scottish fans and the Wallabies-haters against Craig Joubert was that if the referee had consulted the TMO, the infringement would only incur a scrum to the Wallabies instead of a full-arm penalty. A replay would show the ball went forward from a Scottish player and touched Wallabies player Nick Phipps before it was picked up a Scottish player.
The more relevant question we need to ask is this: Did Joubert do the right thing by the Law of Rugby by not referring the infringement to the TMO?
Of course he did.
If Joubert had consulted the TMO, he would have broken the Laws of Rugby.
Even the great Michael Lynagh got it wrong when he said the referee should have consulted the TMO.
The rugby rules are very clear about when the TMO should be consulted by the referee.
Here is what the rule book says:
6.A.4 The duties of the referee in the playing enclosure
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The
referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.
6 A.7. Referee consulting others
Law amendment trial
(b) A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television
Match Official (TMO) who uses technological devices to clarify
situations relating to;
(i) When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a touchdown.
(ii) Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
(iii) Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead.
(iv) Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred in the field of play leading to a try or preventing a try.
(v) Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred.
(vi) Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play.
What this means is if Craig Joubert were to consult the TMO, he would have broken the rules himself. And that is a no-no.
More importantly, the assistant referee did not move in to discuss with the referee to review the decision to award the penalty to draw the referee’s attention that he saw no infringement or that a scrum was a more appropriate decision.
Perhaps, at that point in time, both the assistance referee and referee saw the award of the penalty was the correct decision.
What all this means is the whingeing and the whining by the Scottish fans, including the Scotland skipper Laidlaw, of the referee not consulting the TMO mean they don’t know the Law of Rugby at all.
Here is another poser:
Would Scotland skipper Laidlaw demand that the TMO be consulted if the
same situation had arisen, say, in the 20th or 40th minute of play.
Surely they would not, would they?
So why should they demand that Craig Joubert break the Laws of Rugby to consult the TMO just because it happened at the 78th minute and that Scotland was leading?
